12M jobs in 4 years

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/02/news/economy/romney-jobs/index.htm?hpt=hp_bn3

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Mitt Romney's economic advisers issued a rosy set of projections Thursday that predict 12 million new jobs and a sharp economic expansion if the Republican candidate were to capture the White House.

The paper, authored by four conservative economists, projects that the Romney plan would add between 0.5% and 1% per year in gross domestic product growth over the next decade.

The estimates, the economists write, are "conservative." Growth could be even stronger if hard-to-model gains from more effective regulation and decreased policy uncertainty could be captured.

Yet 12 million new jobs over just four years would be one of the strongest periods of employment growth in recent history, and require the economy to consistently add 250,000 jobs every 30 days for 48 straight months.

According to the position paper, the quick turnaround would be spurred by the lower tax rates and drastic spending cuts that are the hallmark of Romney's plan.

The implementation of Romney's plan will of course require the cooperation of Congress, and it should be noted that presidential campaigns often make promises that fail to materialize.

The paper's authors -- Glenn Hubbard of Columbia, Greg Mankiw of Harvard, John Taylor of Stanford and Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute -- also include a boilerplate critique of the Obama administration's policies.

"America took a wrong turn in economic policy in the past three years," the authors write. "The United States underperformed the historical norm shown in the administration's own forecasts, and its policies are to blame."

Much of the critique is focused on what the authors characterize as a pursuit of short-term patches -- such as the stimulus -- that failed to address deep-seated structural problems like an overly complicated tax code.

The paper criticizes Obama's housing policies, for example, saying the administration "ignored" the weak market. But Romney has not offered a detailed alternative -- and the paper does not shed any light on the candidate's plan for the housing market.

And while the projections are spelled out in detail, the paper does not address any of the bubbling criticisms of Romney's economic plan.

According to a study released Wednesday by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, Romney's plan would provide large tax cuts to the very wealthy, while increasing the tax burden on the lower and middle classes.

Romney's tax cuts would produce a $360 billion revenue loss in 2015, and offsetting that would require a reduction of 65% of all available tax expenditures, according to the study.
The end result is that individuals who make less than $200,000 would actually have to pay $500 more, on average, in taxes -- a 1.2% decrease in after-tax income. Meanwhile, the after-tax income of individuals who make more than $1 million would increase by 4.1%.
The campaign disputed the Tax Policy Center's conclusions, arguing that increased growth resulting from corporate tax reductions was not included.

The Tax Policy Center, meanwhile, said it could not score the plan directly, as "certain components of [Romney's] plan are not specified in sufficient detail."

The notable lack of detail is a critique that has dogged the campaign for months.
On the spending side of the government ledger, for example, Romney has promised to reduce federal spending from 24% of gross domestic product to 20%. But has not offered a comprehensive list of programs he would cut.

Oh, Mitt... is there anything you won't say to try to get elected?
 

a777pilot

Diamond Member
Apr 26, 2011
4,261
21
81
What? Just 250k new jobs per month on average? That is a very low estimate of what needs to be done. This nation needs to produce between 200k and 250k jobs per month JUST to keep up with population growth. What about the millions that are unemployed and under employed? We can do better than that low estimate of Mitt's team.....and we will.
 

a777pilot

Diamond Member
Apr 26, 2011
4,261
21
81
That's what is seems like lately. Promise the world to get into the White House and then spend the next 4 years creating excuses why you can't deliver on those promises.

That's the obama's team MO.
 

mshan

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2004
7,868
0
71
And George W. Bush claims he can generate 4% GDP growth: http://www.amazon.com/4%25-Solution-...George+W.+Bush

I saw that book talked about on tv, and even if you totally exclude the financial crash and near Depression he had a good deal of responsibility for, GDP average only 2.3% per year (I think that is the correct figure) under his administration.

Recovery from the Great Bush near Depression is 1/2 of what is typical after most normal recessions, but those recoveries are also driven by 1) housing, and 2) government spending.

Regarding the 250,000 number, I think that is a raw number (i. e. not seasonally adjusted number we see month to month).

Today's number was probably a little high because July is usually a month that has very little actual job hiring and seasonal adjustment factor that made last few months look so bad (raw numbers were something like 800,000 actual jobs created). Hopefully trend continues and allows Fed to hold off on QE3 until very late in year, when fiscal cliff antics really come into play.

Right now, seems like number to keep up with population growth, in terms of a seasonally adjusted number, is maybe 100k - 125k (think I heard comment on tv that break even might be as low as 80k right now). Morningstar economist said population growth has also been 0.8%, when historically it has been 1.5%.
 
Last edited:

a777pilot

Diamond Member
Apr 26, 2011
4,261
21
81
And George W. Bush claims he can generate 4% GDP growth: http://www.amazon.com/4%25-Solution-...George+W.+Bush

I saw that book talked about on tv, and even if you totally exclude the financial crash and near Depression he had a good deal of responsibility for, GDP average only 2.3% per year (I think that is the correct figure) under his administration.

Recovery from the Great Bush near Depression is 1/2 of what is typical after most normal recessions, but those recoveries are also driven by 1) housing, and 2) government spending.

The President sets the tone and the Congress passes the laws. The economy was doing OK under Bush till the Democrats took control of Congress. Same for Clinton. His sucess was to have a Republican Congress.
 

mshan

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2004
7,868
0
71
It was a giant bubble!

Building 1 million houses more than market needed, injecting dollars with steroids and having financial industry shuffle it around, all while collecting nice fees in process, was not sustainable. (I think something like 40% of SP500 profits in 2007 were from financial industry).

That's like claiming the low gas prices at end of Bush presidency caused by his near Depression count, but gas prices racing towards $5 the same summer don't matter and never occurred.

Same with jobs hole created by Bush near Depression. Saw video clip of Romney running for Massachusetts governor where he said you can't just his record on job creation until 11 months into his term.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
The President sets the tone and the Congress passes the laws. The economy was doing OK under Bush till the Democrats took control of Congress. Same for Clinton. His sucess was to have a Republican Congress.

I know you worship the Republican party, but this is hilariously idiotic even taking into account your party devotion.

The economy was doing OK under Bush until the Democrats took control of Congress? No.. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/12/economic_review.html

Clinton's success was because he had a Republican congress? No... the success of the Clinton years was due to there being an effective divided government that largely kept the government's hands tied so it couldn't meddle too much in the technology revolution that was spurring much of the economic growth.
 
Last edited:

a777pilot

Diamond Member
Apr 26, 2011
4,261
21
81
p.s., I don't worship the Republican Party. They have as many idiots and criminals as does the Democrat Party. My Congressman Critter is a Republican. I didn't vote for him in 2008, 2010 and will not vote for him in 2012.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
It was a giant bubble!

Building 1 million houses more than market needed, injecting dollars with steroids and having financial industry shuffle it around, all while collecting nice fees in process, was not sustainable. (I think something like 40% of SP500 profits in 2007 were from financial industry).

So you agree that the problem with building too many houses not George Bush.

That's like claiming the low gas prices at end of Bush presidency caused by his near Depression count, but gas prices racing towards $5 the same summer don't matter and never occurred.

Things certainly look worse when you exaggerate the price of gas by 20%.
 

zsdersw

Lifer
Oct 29, 2003
10,505
2
0
p.s., I don't worship the Republican Party. They have as many idiots and criminals as does the Democrat Party. My Congressman Critter is a Republican. I didn't vote for him in 2008, 2010 and will not vote for him in 2012.

Laying all of the blame for the economic downturn in 2006 (when the Democrats took over Congress) on the Democrats while giving all of the praise for the economy during Clinton's 8 years is a revisionist history that only a blind partisan would make.
 

mshan

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2004
7,868
0
71
Romney Said It Was "Silly" To Suggest Job Growth Turn Around The Day He Got Elected Governor. It takes a while to get things turned around

Found Mitt the Twit's own words via google search --> ** http://youtu.be/drRRKR-5SeM **

(you can't judge my job creation until 11 months into my Massachussets governorship. It takes a while to get things turned around)


:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Jan 25, 2011
17,090
9,576
146
Found Mitt the Twit's own words via google search --> ** http://youtu.be/drRRKR-5SeM **

(you can't judge my job creation until 11 months into my Massachussets governorship. It takes a while to get things turned around)


:rolleyes:

I don't see anything wrong with that time frame. Unemployment is a lagging indicator usually 2-3 quarters behind the economy itself. Taking into consideration time for any plans to be put in place and then for it to hit the economy it seems reasonable.
 

mshan

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2004
7,868
0
71
I agree, but the jobs whole that is used as Obama's baseline is either before he was inaugurated or even before he was elected president (peak of bubble in say October 2008), I think.

It's just like saying how low gas was under Bush. You take the number reflecting a near depression, and ignore price of summer a few months before that when bubble was still ostensably intact.
 

Lithium381

Lifer
May 12, 2001
12,452
2
0
hope and change!
forward!
anything but the ecomony!!!! tax returns! london olympic security concerns?!!! no taxes in 10 years?!!?!? DOGS ON CARS?!?!?!? A FELON!!!!
 
Jan 25, 2011
17,090
9,576
146
I agree, but the jobs whole that is used as Obama's baseline is either before he was inaugurated or even before he was elected president (peak of bubble in say October 2008), I think.

It's just like saying how low gas was under Bush. You take the number reflecting a near depression, and ignore price of summer a few months before that when bubble was still ostensably intact.

Absolutely the debate about jobs was done dishonestly when Obama took office. Comparing averages unemployment rates over the entire Bush term etc... while ignoring the collapse at the end of his term.

That being said it's been almost 4 years. There is a lot more merit to the criticisms now than before.
 
Last edited:

mshan

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2004
7,868
0
71
Plus I saw commentary on tv recently that average work week has increased 2 hours (I think that is figure he said) under Obama administration, which is equivalent to an additional 2 million jobs.

IIRC, 0.1 increase in workweek seen last month was equivalent to another 300,000 jobs (not seasonally adjusted, when raw total jobs created number was around 800,000).

From my preliminary internet research, this "seasonally adjusted" monthly jobs figure is more of a standardized, normalized momentum (second derivative, rate of change) type indicator to compare apple to oranges reports from month to month, rather than actual underlying number.

Also saw commentary that GDP, year over year, for 2Q was 2.3%, even though seasonally adjusted figure was 1.5% (some talking head on tv said even that number should be adjusted up to 1.7% based on a few economic reports that came out after gdp report). Obviously, not good, but at least sluggish and stable, unless we get an exogenous shock from Europe (deflation and recession) or China (10 year change of power and concerns about sudden collapse of Chinese shadow banking system).

Consumer income for year is supposed to be up 1.7%, but consumers became hesitant about continuing to spend over last month or so, and are saving or paying down debt right now.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
In the SF Bay area during the summer of '08 the price of fuel for Regular seemed to get to about $4.79 when I was working there.

Outside of CA, it was between $0.50 to $1 cheaper.

Bubble popped and prices dove in the fall/winter by $2.00.

I was getting fuel at $2.49 in Denver that winter.

Presently, it is nudging $4; went to $4.25 earlier this year
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Plus I saw commentary on tv recently that average work week has increased 2 hours (I think that is figure he said) under Obama administration, which is equivalent to an additional 2 million jobs.

IIRC, 0.1 increase in workweek seen last month was equivalent to another 300,000 jobs (not seasonally adjusted, when raw total jobs created number was around 800,000).

From my preliminary internet research, this "seasonally adjusted" monthly jobs figure is more of a standardized, normalized momentum (second derivative, rate of change) type indicator to compare apple to oranges reports from month to month, rather than actual underlying number.

Also saw commentary that GDP, year over year, for 2Q was 2.3%, even though seasonally adjusted figure was 1.5% (some talking head on tv said even that number should be adjusted up to 1.7% based on a few economic reports that came out after gdp report). Obviously, not good, but at least sluggish and stable, unless we get an exogenous shock from Europe (deflation and recession) or China (10 year change of power and concerns about sudden collapse of Chinese shadow banking system).

Consumer income for year is supposed to be up 1.7%, but consumers became hesitant about continuing to spend over last month or so, and are saving or paying down debt right now.

Are they hiring extra people to cover that 2 hrs/week or just that poeple are working more during the week.

Numbers can be twisted to mean most anything besides the truth
 

mshan

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2004
7,868
0
71
It was a comment I heard on tv in passing, but I believe what was said that average work week under Obama is 2 hours (I think that is correct number) more than under Bush, and that was equivalent to an additional 2 million jobs (I guess employers giving out overtime vs. hiring new workers).

Copied and pasted this from BLS Report link available at Morningstar:
"The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls was unchanged at
34.5 hours in July. Both the manufacturing workweek, at 40.7 hours, and factory overtime,
at 3.2 hours, were unchanged over the month. The average workweek for production and
nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls was unchanged at 33.7 hours. (See
tables B-2 and B-7.)"

My guess is what that talking head on tv is saying that that topline number (34.5 hours) was on average 32.5 hours under Bush (?)

Also previously saw another talking head say how temporary workers were going to be a larger part of workforce going forward because it allows employers to scale up and down faster, may allow them to get around paying benefits, and is safer option until there is more political clarity on things such as health care, taxes, etc.

I am not trying to argue that things are great, or even really good. But there really seems to be a lot of statistical noise in these government statistics, the simple takeaway of which is the good numbers are not as good as they originally appear, but bad numbers aren't as bad as they initially appear either.

If you are anti-Obama, I would think you should be very happy with today's upside surprise (some talking head on tv this morning said highest estimate on Wall Street for jobs number was something like 130 - 140k, so the number truly surprised to the upside), because it hopefully keeps Bernanke and the Fed on the sideline regarding QE3, at least temporarily, hopefully at least to very late this year when Congress goes into their antics during lame duck session after presidential election.
 
Last edited: